“CURT, WHAT’S A GRAMMAR IN PROPERTARIANISM?” (important)(core) [A] grammar has traditionally referred to a book containing the rules of a language. But I had to put quite a bit of work into ‘disambiguating’ the terms we use in language. The human cognitive facility consists of identification of constant relations between stimuli in time resulting in categorization (identity). The human auto association facility consists of discovering relations between categories (identities). The human memory facility consists of repetition of stimuli or rehearsal from short term memory, to create, reinforce, change, and eliminate constant relation within and between categories (locations, places, barriers, models, identities) The human logical facility consist of tests of constant, inconstant, and unrecognized relations between states (categories, identities). The human grammar facility refers to our physical ability to perform continuous recursive disambiguation using a stream of signals, most commonly in the form of sounds. The human language facility refers to the use of patterns of symbols or sounds in sequence of continuously recursive attempts at disambiguation. A language consists of Phonemes (sounds), Morphemes(meaningful combination of sounds – roots), Vocabulary (words), Phrases (state), Sentences (changes in state – transactions), Stories (collections of transactions), Grammar (rules of organization making possible disambiguation by inference), and Syntax (further disambiguation – specifically when writing). A vocabulary consists of Names (Nouns, references to referents), Name Substitutes (pronouns), Properties (Adjective, state), Operations (verbs, actions, state of acting), Properties of Operations (Adverb). and Approval or Rejection (yes no true false agree disagree etc). Note that I’ve clarified some terms here a little differently than we traditionally do. However (this is the issue) the collections of permissible dimensions (paradigms) limit the rules of continuous recursive disambiguation: The logic of the paradigm. This is why…. Let’s use math because it’s the most simple language we have that all of us share. Mathematics consists of names of positions (numbers), variables (pronouns), names of operations ( mathematical operations, verbs), phrases (expressions), statements (functions), sentences (transactions), proofs (stories), and Approval or Rejection (true false). There are no adverbs or adjectives. What differs between ordinary language and mathematical language is that mathematics (the language of positional names) and ordinary language (the language of human experience) differ in ‘dimensions of permissible references’ to both Names (nouns) and Operations (verbs). And we can do the same analysis for every Grammar (system of rules) in the spectrum of: math, accounting, logics, programming, physics, chemistry, biochemistry, recipes, protocols, laws, testimony, descriptions, ordinary language, narration, storytelling, fictions, fictionalisms, and deceits – and everything in between. And we use the term “Deflationary grammar” for the narrowest grammars (math, logics), “ordinary grammar” for ordinary language, and “Inflationary grammar” for the widest grammars (story, fiction, fictionalism, deceits). Deflationary < —- Ordinary —-> Inflationary. So instead of the traditional hierarchy: Human Facilities -> language -> phoneme -> morpheme -> paradigms (metaphysics) -> vocabulary -> grammar -> syntax. Instead we have: Human Facilities (see above) -> vocabulary -> paradigms(dimensions) -> grammar of paradigm(rules of story, transaction, function, expression, operation, names: the LOGIC of the paradigm) -> permissible vocabulary -> necessary syntax. So a Grammar refers to the Paradigm (permissible dimensions of perception, cognition, and action), the Names, Operations, and Rules of Continuous Recursive Disambiguation (morpheme, word, phrase, sentence, story organization) and the LOGIC (constant relations) that limit consistency, correspondence, coherence, and completeness. So in P we use a ‘grammar’ to refer to the Vocabulary, logic, syntax of a paradigm. And when we use the term “the Grammars’ we mean the spectrum And Operational Grammar or Testimony is a Deflationary Grammar: a Deflation (constraint upon) ordinary language grammar, limiting it to a single point of view, absent the verb to be, using complete promissory sentences, describing a series of operations (human actions), resulting in testable transactions (sentence), and sets of transactions (testimony). The paradigm of human actions.
Theme: Measurement
-
“What’s a Grammar in Propertarianism?”
“CURT, WHAT’S A GRAMMAR IN PROPERTARIANISM?” (important)(core) [A] grammar has traditionally referred to a book containing the rules of a language. But I had to put quite a bit of work into ‘disambiguating’ the terms we use in language. The human cognitive facility consists of identification of constant relations between stimuli in time resulting in categorization (identity). The human auto association facility consists of discovering relations between categories (identities). The human memory facility consists of repetition of stimuli or rehearsal from short term memory, to create, reinforce, change, and eliminate constant relation within and between categories (locations, places, barriers, models, identities) The human logical facility consist of tests of constant, inconstant, and unrecognized relations between states (categories, identities). The human grammar facility refers to our physical ability to perform continuous recursive disambiguation using a stream of signals, most commonly in the form of sounds. The human language facility refers to the use of patterns of symbols or sounds in sequence of continuously recursive attempts at disambiguation. A language consists of Phonemes (sounds), Morphemes(meaningful combination of sounds – roots), Vocabulary (words), Phrases (state), Sentences (changes in state – transactions), Stories (collections of transactions), Grammar (rules of organization making possible disambiguation by inference), and Syntax (further disambiguation – specifically when writing). A vocabulary consists of Names (Nouns, references to referents), Name Substitutes (pronouns), Properties (Adjective, state), Operations (verbs, actions, state of acting), Properties of Operations (Adverb). and Approval or Rejection (yes no true false agree disagree etc). Note that I’ve clarified some terms here a little differently than we traditionally do. However (this is the issue) the collections of permissible dimensions (paradigms) limit the rules of continuous recursive disambiguation: The logic of the paradigm. This is why…. Let’s use math because it’s the most simple language we have that all of us share. Mathematics consists of names of positions (numbers), variables (pronouns), names of operations ( mathematical operations, verbs), phrases (expressions), statements (functions), sentences (transactions), proofs (stories), and Approval or Rejection (true false). There are no adverbs or adjectives. What differs between ordinary language and mathematical language is that mathematics (the language of positional names) and ordinary language (the language of human experience) differ in ‘dimensions of permissible references’ to both Names (nouns) and Operations (verbs). And we can do the same analysis for every Grammar (system of rules) in the spectrum of: math, accounting, logics, programming, physics, chemistry, biochemistry, recipes, protocols, laws, testimony, descriptions, ordinary language, narration, storytelling, fictions, fictionalisms, and deceits – and everything in between. And we use the term “Deflationary grammar” for the narrowest grammars (math, logics), “ordinary grammar” for ordinary language, and “Inflationary grammar” for the widest grammars (story, fiction, fictionalism, deceits). Deflationary < —- Ordinary —-> Inflationary. So instead of the traditional hierarchy: Human Facilities -> language -> phoneme -> morpheme -> paradigms (metaphysics) -> vocabulary -> grammar -> syntax. Instead we have: Human Facilities (see above) -> vocabulary -> paradigms(dimensions) -> grammar of paradigm(rules of story, transaction, function, expression, operation, names: the LOGIC of the paradigm) -> permissible vocabulary -> necessary syntax. So a Grammar refers to the Paradigm (permissible dimensions of perception, cognition, and action), the Names, Operations, and Rules of Continuous Recursive Disambiguation (morpheme, word, phrase, sentence, story organization) and the LOGIC (constant relations) that limit consistency, correspondence, coherence, and completeness. So in P we use a ‘grammar’ to refer to the Vocabulary, logic, syntax of a paradigm. And when we use the term “the Grammars’ we mean the spectrum And Operational Grammar or Testimony is a Deflationary Grammar: a Deflation (constraint upon) ordinary language grammar, limiting it to a single point of view, absent the verb to be, using complete promissory sentences, describing a series of operations (human actions), resulting in testable transactions (sentence), and sets of transactions (testimony). The paradigm of human actions.
-
“CURT, WHAT’S A GRAMMAR IN PROPERTARIANISM?” (important)(core) A grammar has tra
“CURT, WHAT’S A GRAMMAR IN PROPERTARIANISM?”
(important)(core)
A grammar has traditionally referred to a book containing the rules of a language. But I had to but quite a bit of work into ‘disambiguating’ the terms we use in language.
The human cognitive facility consists of identification of constant relations between stimuli in time resulting in categorization (identity).
The human auto association facility consists of discovering relations between categories (identities).
The human memory facility consists of repetition of stimuli or rehearsal from short term memory, to create, reinforce, change, and eliminate constant relation within and between categories (locations, places, barriers, models, identities)
The human logical facility consist of tests of constant, inconstant, and unrecognized relations between states (categories, identities).
The human grammar facility refers to our physical ability to perform continuous recursive disambiguation using a stream of signals, most commonly in the form of sounds.
The human language facility refers to the use of patterns of symbols or sounds in sequence of continuously recursive attempts at disambiguation.
A language consists of Phonemes (sounds), Morphemes(meaningful combination of sounds – roots), Vocabulary (words), Phrases (state), Sentences (changes in state – transactions), Stories (collections of transactions), Grammar (rules of organization making possible disambiguation by inference), and Syntax (further disambiguation – specifically when writing).
A vocabulary consists of Names (Nouns, references to referents), Name Substitutes (pronouns), Properties (Adjective, state), Operations (verbs, actions, state of acting), Properties of Operations (Adverb). and Approval or Rejection (yes no true false agree disagree etc). Note that I’ve clarified some terms here a little differently than we traditionally do.
However (this is the issue) the collections of permissible dimensions (paradigms) limit the rules of continuous recursive disambiguation: The logic of the paradigm.
This is why…. Let’s use math because it’s the most simple language we have that all of us share.
Mathematics consists of names of positions (numbers), variables (pronouns), names of operations ( mathematical operations, verbs), phrases (expressions), statements (functions), sentences (transactions), proofs (stories), and Approval or Rejection (true false). There are no adverbs or adjectives.
What differs between ordinary language and mathematical language is that mathematics (the language of positional names) and ordinary language (the language of human experience) differ in ‘dimensions of permissible references’ to both Names (nouns) and Operations (verbs).
And we can do the same analysis for every Grammar (system of rules) in the spectrum of: math, accounting, logics, programming, physics, chemistry, biochemistry, recipes, protocols, laws, testimony, descriptions, ordinary language, narration, storytelling, fictions, fictionalisms, and deceits – and everything in between.
And we use the term “Deflationary grammar” for the narrowest grammars (math, logics), “ordinary grammar” for ordinary language, and “Inflationary grammar” for the widest grammars (story, fiction, fictionalism, deceits).
Deflationary < —- Ordinary —-> Inflationary.
So instead of the traditional hierarchy:
Human Facilities -> language -> phoneme -> morpheme -> paradigms (metaphysics and resulting semantics) -> vocabulary -> grammar -> syntax.
Instead we have:
Human Facilities (see above) -> vocabulary -> paradigms(dimensions) -> grammar of paradigm(rules of story, transaction, function, expression, operation, names: the LOGIC of the paradigm) -> permissible vocabulary -> necessary syntax.
So a Grammar refers to the Paradigm (permissible dimensions of perception, cognition, and action), the Names, Operations, and Rules of Continuous Recursive Disambiguation (morpheme, word, phrase, sentence, story organization) and the LOGIC (constant relations) that limit consistency, correspondence, coherence, and completeness.
So in P we use a ‘grammar’ to refer to the Vocabulary, logic, syntax of a paradigm. And when we use the term “the Grammars’ we mean the spectrum
And Operational Grammar or Testimony is a Deflationary Grammar: a Deflation (constraint upon) ordinary language grammar, limiting it to a single point of view, absent the verb to be, using complete promissory sentences, describing a series of operations (human actions), resulting in testable transactions (sentence), and sets of transactions (testimony).
Source date (UTC): 2019-12-31 12:54:00 UTC
-
“CURT, WHAT’S A GRAMMAR IN PROPERTARIANISM?” (important)(core) A grammar has tra
“CURT, WHAT’S A GRAMMAR IN PROPERTARIANISM?”
(important)(core)
A grammar has traditionally referred to a book containing the rules of a language. But I had to put quite a bit of work into ‘disambiguating’ the terms we use in language.
The human cognitive facility consists of identification of constant relations between stimuli in time resulting in categorization (identity).
The human auto association facility consists of discovering relations between categories (identities).
The human memory facility consists of repetition of stimuli or rehearsal from short term memory, to create, reinforce, change, and eliminate constant relation within and between categories (locations, places, barriers, models, identities)
The human logical facility consist of tests of constant, inconstant, and unrecognized relations between states (categories, identities).
The human grammar facility refers to our physical ability to perform continuous recursive disambiguation using a stream of signals, most commonly in the form of sounds.
The human language facility refers to the use of patterns of symbols or sounds in sequence of continuously recursive attempts at disambiguation.
A language consists of Phonemes (sounds), Morphemes(meaningful combination of sounds – roots), Vocabulary (words), Phrases (state), Sentences (changes in state – transactions), Stories (collections of transactions), Grammar (rules of organization making possible disambiguation by inference), and Syntax (further disambiguation – specifically when writing).
A vocabulary consists of Names (Nouns, references to referents), Name Substitutes (pronouns), Properties (Adjective, state), Operations (verbs, actions, state of acting), Properties of Operations (Adverb). and Approval or Rejection (yes no true false agree disagree etc). Note that I’ve clarified some terms here a little differently than we traditionally do.
However (this is the issue) the collections of permissible dimensions (paradigms) limit the rules of continuous recursive disambiguation: The logic of the paradigm.
This is why…. Let’s use math because it’s the most simple language we have that all of us share.
Mathematics consists of names of positions (numbers), variables (pronouns), names of operations ( mathematical operations, verbs), phrases (expressions), statements (functions), sentences (transactions), proofs (stories), and Approval or Rejection (true false). There are no adverbs or adjectives.
What differs between ordinary language and mathematical language is that mathematics (the language of positional names) and ordinary language (the language of human experience) differ in ‘dimensions of permissible references’ to both Names (nouns) and Operations (verbs).
And we can do the same analysis for every Grammar (system of rules) in the spectrum of: math, accounting, logics, programming, physics, chemistry, biochemistry, recipes, protocols, laws, testimony, descriptions, ordinary language, narration, storytelling, fictions, fictionalisms, and deceits – and everything in between.
And we use the term “Deflationary grammar” for the narrowest grammars (math, logics), “ordinary grammar” for ordinary language, and “Inflationary grammar” for the widest grammars (story, fiction, fictionalism, deceits).
Deflationary < —- Ordinary —-> Inflationary.
So instead of the traditional hierarchy:
Human Facilities -> language -> phoneme -> morpheme -> paradigms (metaphysics) -> vocabulary -> grammar -> syntax.
Instead we have:
Human Facilities (see above) -> vocabulary -> paradigms(dimensions) -> grammar of paradigm(rules of story, transaction, function, expression, operation, names: the LOGIC of the paradigm) -> permissible vocabulary -> necessary syntax.
So a Grammar refers to the Paradigm (permissible dimensions of perception, cognition, and action), the Names, Operations, and Rules of Continuous Recursive Disambiguation (morpheme, word, phrase, sentence, story organization) and the LOGIC (constant relations) that limit consistency, correspondence, coherence, and completeness.
So in P we use a ‘grammar’ to refer to the Vocabulary, logic, syntax of a paradigm. And when we use the term “the Grammars’ we mean the spectrum
And Operational Grammar or Testimony is a Deflationary Grammar: a Deflation (constraint upon) ordinary language grammar, limiting it to a single point of view, absent the verb to be, using complete promissory sentences, describing a series of operations (human actions), resulting in testable transactions (sentence), and sets of transactions (testimony).
Source date (UTC): 2019-12-31 12:54:00 UTC
-
(from elsewhere) The first four minutes of this video are nonsense. There is no
(from elsewhere)
The first four minutes of this video are nonsense. There is no conflict between the coordinate system (our means of description) and the change in the background (described by that coordinate system), and the motion of the particle (energy, change) through the background. He’s confusing the math with reality given that we don’t know the underlying geometry, so we have to resort to use of aggregates (the wave function). Math is a language (logic, grammar) of positional names ideal for the description of constant relations (patterns). If history is a judge of anything, we are stuck in a problem that Hilbert warned us about, and Einstein and Bohr trapped us into, by using probability (aggregates) instead of solving the problem of the underlying geometry. Whether that geometry is a circular (loops) creating a 3d space, or triangles and tetrahedrons creating 3d space, the resulting pattern of which is loops or strings, is something we don’t know and it’s why quantum mechanics and relativity are seemingly incompatible. They make use of two aggregates describing two different patterns. Both theories are correct. The same way that biology and chemistry are correct. But the geometry underneath quantum mechanics is something we just don’t know yet. Unfortunately mathematical platonism is as infectious a disease in physics as it is in mathematics – and lest not even get started on economics.
Source date (UTC): 2019-12-30 16:12:00 UTC
-
It’s increasingly clear to me that the Grammars are as important an insight as i
It’s increasingly clear to me that the Grammars are as important an insight as is Testimonial Truth, Propertarian Ethics, The Ternary Logic of Social Science.
Why? Scientists, philosophers, logicians, mathematicians who don’t understand the foundations (grammars) of their disciplines.
Scientists: It’s testimony on results after falsification of all available dimensions. The means of falsification are irrelevant.
Philosophers: avoiding cost, actionability, informational asymmetry, and reciprocity creating unreality. Idealism is merely confession of ignorance. The majority of Philosophical terms and categories are dead because they were WRONG.
Logicians: there is no closure, and logics are only falsificationary, you can’t prove anything without appeal to reality. Stop treating it as scriptural interpretation (hermeneutics).
Mathematicians: it’s just a language of positional names limited by the grammar of ratios, meaning that positional names provide both perfect disambiguation by a single constant relation (position) and position can be used to generate endless names, so it is endlessly possible to describe constant relations, where the term pattern refers only to some set of constant relation. It’s not that math is unreasonably effective at describing constant relations it’s that it’s only possible for it to describe constant relations.
Source date (UTC): 2019-12-30 11:35:00 UTC
-
“Counting” either equals pairing off or recitation
“Counting” either equals pairing off or recitation.
Source date (UTC): 2019-12-29 22:04:26 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1211407653391491072
-
“Counting” either equals pairing off or recitation
“Counting” either equals pairing off or recitation.
Source date (UTC): 2019-12-29 17:04:00 UTC
-
We have gone from 112-115 in the 1800’s to almost 97 today, and beyond 97 is a c
We have gone from 112-115 in the 1800’s to almost 97 today, and beyond 97 is a cliff into third world status.
Source date (UTC): 2019-12-29 02:08:52 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1211106778856988672
Reply addressees: @ivanlawhg
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1211069073599148032
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1211069073599148032
-
REGARDING MATHEMATICAL PLATONISM AND THE TEST OF .999.. = 1. This article is ide
REGARDING MATHEMATICAL PLATONISM AND THE TEST OF .999.. = 1.
This article is ideological propaganda (which is common here) in favor of mathematical platonism that intentionally or not misrepresents the problem.
This question of whether .999… = 1 is the canon example, and litmus test, of the conflict over the foundations of mathematics between the schools (a) demanding the scientific basis of mathematics (mathematical realism) by Hilbert and (b) the literary (pseudoscientific) basis of mathematics that was reintroduced by Cantor resulting in the catastrophe of mathematics, logic, and even mathematical physics in the twentieth century. So it is not a question of pedagogy but an unsettled conflict over the choice between mathematical realism under which no infinity is operationally impossible, limits always extant in any application, and therefore .999 != 1, versus mathematical platonism dependent upon the law of the excluded middle, under which deductively, one cannot construct a statement in the vocabulary and grammar of mathematics (the logic of positional names) where .999… does not equal 1. This is the battle between realism (science, operational mathematics), and idealism (philosophy, literary mathematics).
For example, Descartes was important because he restored mathematics to geometry (operations) giving us the cartesian model, and the result was newton-liebnitz’s calculus on one end and the restoration of the realism on the other. Cantor, Bohr, and yes, even Einstein as well as the logicians tried to restore idealism. This led to the constructivist argument. That argument succeeded in physics and has slowly propagated through the sciences, even, oddly causing the reformation of psychology (although not sociology). Computer science has taken up constructivist mathematics leaving mathematical platonism to the discipline of math. Unfortunately, we are stuck with Einstein-Bohr-Cantor versus Hilbert-Poincare-Turing, and this is one of the profound failings ofthe 20th century.
For example. Numbers exist as names of positions and nothing else. We use positional naming to generate unique names. Positions are ordered but scale independent. All of mathematics consist of functions producing names in the grammar and vocabulary of positional names. Cantor states that we can produce multiple infinities of different sizes. This is a fictionalism (parable). Instead, no infinity is constructible only predictable in imagination. So, in any sequence of operations, different sets will produce new positional names at different rates, such that at any given limit, the sets will differ in sizes. There are no different ‘sizes’ of infinities, only different rates of production of positional (unique) names. Math is full of such parables.
In ethics for example, the litmus test is blackmail: it’s voluntary, it’s an exchange, but why do we react against it? Because it’s an unproductive transfer. In logic it’s whether logic is binary and a rule of inference (true vs false) or ternary and scientific (false, truth candidate, undecidable). In mathematics the litmus test is whether .999… = 1. Under realism, no it doesn’t. Under idealism (Platonism) it does. Science (meaning testimony) imposes a higher standard than idealism (platonism). Platonism remains justificationary and Realism falsificationary.
So when you make the claim the question is pedagogical (error) and that people don’t understand – that’s patently false. It’s that operationalism (realism, science) has a higher standard than platonism (idealism, prose). And under realism .999… cannot possible ever equal 1 since no infinity is operationally possible. Whereas under idealism the standard is lower, because under scale independence, infinity substitutes for the unknown limit, which as a consequence is 1.
The fact that people aren’t pedagogically informed that this debate exists, and persists, and that its origin is between western engineering and geometry, and middle eastern algebra and astrology, leading to western reason and science, versus eastern theology and mysticism – then you begin to understand how important this question is – and why our physicists have been lost in mathematical platonism – and why scientific woo woo is so common, when it’s increasingly likely that mathematics of positions names (points) has most likely reached its limits. And that we have failed to create the next generation of mathematics (shapes, geometries) that would allow us to solve protein foldings and the structure of the universe that results in our observed but unsolvable quantum distributions of probability.
Source date (UTC): 2019-12-29 00:00:00 UTC